The Emporia weekly news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1881-1889, 1887-01-27

i IC1dIEO1lS WAS ludl III
president of the United States shoulC
be empowered TO close American port
against any or all fishermen ant
against any or all merchant vessels
The queen of Great Britain had to-dal
the power to close her ports agains
any of the products of the Who'll,
world if she saw fit. He saw no objec
ton to entrusting that power to the pre-
sident. He believed that the president
would only have to take advantage of thu
bill and issue his proclamation that III
fish, fresh or salt or canned or smoked
the product of Canadian fisheries
shall be landed in any part OF
the United States, and not another
outrage by this British colony would bt
heard of, but if these outrages were t.
continue and were to result in a recip-
rOcity treaty las had been the case be
fore) that treaty would again he abro-
gated and the outrages would be again re
newed. The bill in the house of represen-
tatiyes on the subject went farther than
the bill. 1t gave the president author
ity to proclaim nOn-intefcOurSe. He
did not believe that the house commit
tee on foreign affairs would have re-
ported that bin without knowing
whether or not the administration
was In sympathy with it. The SEN
atOr from Maryland MIR. GORlnan) had
introduced a resolution on the same
subject some time ago and that senator
was known to be friend of the admin
istratiOn. The secretary of the treas
ury lone of the brightest men in the ad-
ministration) had lately sent commu-
nication to the senate reviewing the
conduct OF Canada in this matter and
had declared it to be simply BRUTAL -
The secretary of state had used dip
tomato language on the subject,
but even he had said over and over
again that the acts of the Canadi-
an authorities were outrages and that
| the United States would demand reSti-
tuition. MIR. Gray quoted the secretary
of state as characteriZing in a note to
| Minister West the acts of the Canadian
authorities as inhospitable and inhu-
man. Frye added that the
American minister to England,
(Mr. Pkelps) had made an
unexceptionable a clear, "a complete,
and to him, an entirely satisfactory
statement of the whole case. He be-
lieved that the president was in favor
of protecting the rights of every Ameri-
can citizen, and if the laws were passed
the power which it would put into his
hands would be used for the protection
| of American rights.
Ingalls, said that one object which he
had in view had been accomplished. He
had desired to ascertain, if possible, the
| intention of the committee on foreign
relations in the proposed legislation.
He had been in doubt whether it was to
remit the subject to the domain of
diplomacy, or whether it was intended
| as declaration to Great Britain that
its course, if persisted in, would
result in war. He understood from the
statement of the senator from Maine
Mr.. Frye) speaking for the committee
as he Ingalls) supposed he did, that if
the bill became law it was a declar-
alton to Great Britain that she would
continue the practices at her peril and
that if they were persisted in they
must be enforced by war. The state
ment of facts made by the senator from
Maine constituted casus belli under the
law of nations the continuance of ami
cable intercourse under such circum-
stances would be impossible. He had
therefore desired to know whether the
purpose of the bill was to invite diplom-
ancy or to announce to Great Britain that
such proceedings had been carried to
the extremity and limit of peaceable
solution. The voice was the voice of
Canada, but the hand was the hand of
Great Britain.
Edmunds asked Ingalls, whether he
meant to say that any act which the
people of the United States might con-
slider violation of a treaty was neceS-
sarily casus belli.
Ingalls, meant to say that declared
and avOwed and continued violation
of treaty obligations OF of international
law are caSus belli.
Edmuds-It does not necessarily fol-
low that every breach of treaty is to be
followed by war.
IngallS-How about continuous,
deliberate, Wilful violation of treaty.
Do anf 10 Il hi
Ingalls-That is this case. This
trouble has got to be settled so far as
this bill is concerned, either by diplo-
macy or by blood.
Edmunds-The question here is not a
question of war, but is a question of
cOuntervailing regulations, which all
nations have resOrted to long before
war and which usually never come to
| war. ~ 1
Ingalls-The senator from Vermont
states that the question In controversy
between the two countries is merely the
Interpretation or construction of the
treaty of 1918.
Edmunds-No, do not say that.
Ingalls, understand the senator to
say it. England has always been a ruff
fan, coward among the nations of the
| earth, insolent to the weak, tyrannical
to the feeble, and cringing and Obseque
to the strong. Her history for cen
turtles has been record of crime against
| the human race in Ireland, in Scot
land and in Wales, against the
Catholics, against the beers of south
| Africa, against the HindoOS and the
Chinese. Wherever there has been a
feeble, a weak, a helpless nation, Great
Britain has been there for the purpose
of rapacity, plumber and conquest.
England bears no good will to this
country. The memory of defeat rankles,
IL dare say, in the breasts OF
Englishmen; when l say that Great
Britain 3 not friendly to this country
1 mean that the ruling classes are un-
friendly to this country. Her course
has been always one of wrong, inso
the south with false hopes of recog
milton and injured the north by viola
tions of neutrality. Her course il
the treaty of Washington was actuateC
solely by fear of the consequences tt
that country in the civil war in which
she might have engaged if she permit
ted the principle which She established
to stand undenied. y | believ'
epTocty there Of good no wn special on tie
part of America towards England
There are few Americans who do no
regret Waterloo. There are few
Americans who do not recognize tina
the course of England towards thi
} country has been one of insolence, sus
picion and outrage from the be
: ginning of our national existence
If / read this transaction
a right there is no purpose on the par
: of Great Britain to secure a peaceful
solution of the doubtful provisions O
/ the treaty of 1918, but rather delibeI
ate intention to so foment the iTTita
ton and discomfort between Canad
1 and the United States, as to proven
: the pacification in the immediate fu
ture, which would be inevitabl
: if both people were lef
= to the operation of the natural law
: of trade and society. see very plainl
t what the purpose of Great Britain ha
e been in the matter. She desires t
, render it impossible for free friendl
t reciprocal relations, tpoliticial an
|, otherwise to exist between Canad
t and the United States. Therefor
s I was glad to hear of tn
4 Interpretation placed in the propose
8 legislation by the senator from Main
; tFTye) that so far as he is concerned |
q is to be a declaration to Great Britai
= recognizing her agency and her powf
I in the matterl that she viii persist ful